Judge: Loren G. Freestone, Case: 37-2022-00016473-CU-PO-CTL, Date: 2023-09-15 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 14, 2023

09/15/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-64 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Loren G. Freestone

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  PI/PD/WD - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00016473-CU-PO-CTL SHAIKEN VS THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Steven Shaiken's petition for relief pursuant to Government Code section 946.6 is DENIED.

The Government Claims Act requires personal injury claims be presented to the public entity within six months of accrual. (Gov. Code, § 911.2.) When such a claim is not presented within six months, the claimant has up to one year from accrual to apply to the public entity for leave to present a late claim.

(Id. at § 911.4.) If an application for leave to present a late claim is denied, the claimant has six months to petition the court for relief. (Id. at § 946.6.) The court can only grant relief only if, among other things, the application for leave to present a late claim was made within one year of the date the claim accrued.

(Id. at subd. (c).) '[F]iling a late-claim application within one year after the accrual of a cause of action is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a claim-relief petition. When the underlying application to file a late claim is filed more than one year after the accrual of the cause of action, the court is without jurisdiction to grant relief under Government Code section 946.6.' (J.J. v. County of San Diego (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1221.) Here, Shaiken's claim accrued on March 27, 2021. Shaiken did not file a claim with the County within six months thereafter, nor did he apply for leave to file a late claim within one year thereafter. It was not until March 26, 2023-nearly two years after his claim accrued-that Shaiken sent his claim/application to the County. As such, the court lacks jurisdiction to grant the petition.

Shaiken argues that the County should be estopped from asserting noncompliance with the Government Claims Act to the extent the County Assessor's Office represented that the subject property was owned by the City rather than the County. A 'plaintiff may be entitled to assert equitable estoppel if a public entity or its employee provided misleading information about which entity was responsible on a government claim.' (Santos v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1065, 1076.) Equitable estoppel may be a basis for overcoming a pleading challenge. (See, e.g., Fredrichsen v. City of Lakewood (1971) 6 Cal.3d 353 [error to sustain demurrer based on failure to present a timely claim where plaintiff alleged that the city clerk negligently informed her that responsibility for maintaining the defective sidewalk where she slipped rested with a third party].) Equitable estoppel may also be a basis for averting a motion for summary judgment. (See, e.g., Santos, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at p. 1076 [error to grant summary judgment based on failure to present a timely Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3008664  29 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SHAIKEN VS THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO [IMAGED]  37-2022-00016473-CU-PO-CTL claim where plaintiff presented evidence that school district caused claimants to believe that school police department, whose officer crashed into them, was a separate entity].) However, equitable estoppel is not a basis for granting a petition when the underlying application was not presented within one year. As noted, the one-year limit is jurisdictional. (J.J., supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 1221.) 'It is fundamental that jurisdiction may not be conferred upon a court by estoppel.' (Harvey v. City of Holtville (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 595, 597.) Thus, the 'estoppel issue may not be raised in [a petition under section 946.6] but, if at all, only in support of plaintiff's cause of action.' (Compare ibid. [estoppel not a basis for granting untimely application for relief from claim presentation requirement] with Harvey v. City of Holtville (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 816 [estoppel a basis for overruling demurrer based on failure to comply with claims presentation requirement].) Whether Shaiken can successfully invoke equitable estoppel to prevent the County from asserting noncompliance with the Government Claims Act as a defense is not an issue presently before the Court.

As Shaiken failed to apply for leave to file a late claim within one year after his claim accrued, the court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief requested in the petition. The petition is therefore denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3008664  29